Carafiols

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

CARAFIOLS
L. H. C., Inc.--Fashion Furniture Company d/b/a
Carafiols-Carafiol Furniture Co . d/b/a Carafiols
and Teamsters, Local Union No. 688 , affiliated with
International - Brotherhood , of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
14-CA-6336
March 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
On December 10, 1971, Trial Examiner Benjamin B.
Lipton issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent .filed exceptions and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings,
findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent,
L. H. C., Inc.--Fashion Furniture Company d/b/a
Carafiols-Carafiol Furniture Co. d/b/a Carafiols, of
Lemay, Warson Woods, and Bridgeton, Missouri, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: On September 13
and 14, 1971,' this case was tried before me in St. Louis,
Missouri, upon a complaint by the General Counsel' alleging
certain independent acts of coercion, and the discriminatory
discharge of five employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case,' with due consideration
of the briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent, and
from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses on the
stand, I make the following:
All dates are in 1971, unless otherwise specified
The Union filed and served, respectively, an original charge on July 7
and 8, and an amended charge on July 16 and 19; the complaint was issued
on August 5
' Respondent's motion to dismiss is disposed of in accordance with the
findings herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
989
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
L. H. C., Inc., is engaged at Lemay, Missouri, in the ware-
housing and distribution of furniture and related products.
Fashion Furniture Company d/b/a Carafiols at Warson
Woods, Missouri, and Carafiol Furniture Co. d/b/a Carafiols
at Bridgeton, Missouri, are each engaged in the retail sale and
distribution of furniture and related products. All three Com-
panies, herein collectively called the Respondent, are admit-
tedly a single integrated entrerprise, and constitute a single
employer for the purpose of this case. During the calendar
year 1970, Fashion and Carafiol each had a gross volume of
business in excess of $500,000, and each of the three named
Companies had a direct inflow in interstate commerce valued
in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
Under Section 8(a)(1), it is alleged that Respondent inter-
rogated one employee, promised and granted a pay raise to
the same employee, and admitted to an employee's relative
that it had terminated employees for their union activities.
Under Section 8(a)(3), it is alleged that Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged five named warehouse employees.
Respondent generally denies the alleged violations. As to one
of the dischargees, Michael W. Pardew, Respondent con-
tends in the alternative that he engaged in picket line miscon-
duct which rendered him unfit for reemployment.
B. Background and Setting
Respondent operates a retail furniture store and warehouse
at Lemay, at Warson Woods (herein called the Manchester
store), and at Bridgeton, Missouri. The Lemay store has the
"main" warehouse facility. Aaron Carafiol is president, and
his brother, Joseph, is an officer, of the three Companies.
Aaron and Joseph are jointly responsible for the Manchester
Store; Joseph's son, Harvey, is in charge of the Lemay store;
and Aaron's son, Larry, manages the Bridgeton store. Russell
J. Gittins, during the times material, was the warehouse su-
perintendent at the Lemay store. Under Gittins' immediate-
supervision were four to five warehouse employees, two to
four drivers, two to three driver helpers, and two furniture
finishers. At the Manchester store, three warehouse em-
ployees were employed. including Jeffrey L. Pettus. The num-
ber or identity of the warehouse employees at the Bridgeton
store is not shown. As of June 30, the Lemay warehousemen
consisted, of Richard- Cusick, Michael W. Pardew, Earl W.
Morlock, William Corwin, and Mark Linville.' Linville was
hired during the first week in June, and Corwin during the
third week in June.' A collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union existed covering only Respondent's drivers and
helpers.
Linville is related to Harvey Carafiol through marriage His father also
employed by Respondent as a driver, is the uncle of Harvey's wife
Based on uncontroverted testimony of Cusick and Morlock, Respond-
ent did not produce any records. The warehouse employees who appeared
as witnesses (Cusick, Pardew, Morlock, and Pettus) were, or seemed to be,
from 16 to 19 years old
195 NLRB No. 181
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Early in June, a truckdriver not employed by Respondent,
broached the subject of union organization to certain of the
Lemay warehousemen. They agreed to consider the matter.
In the ensuing period, discussions which were "very
guarded" took place in the Lemay warehouse, confined at
first to Cusick, Pardew, and Morlock. During the third week
of June, these employees affirmatively indicated their interest
to the truckdriver, who was to contact employees at Re-
spondent's other stores. On June 29, an arrangement was
made for the employees to meet that night with Elzie Smith,
a business representative of the Union. Attending the meeting
were Cusick, Pardew, Morlock, Corwin (from the Lemay
store), Pettus, and Leonard Welkener (from the Manchester
store). Following a discussion concerning benefits and proce-
dures, union authorizations were passed out to be signed and
mailed back to the Union. Smith testified that, in the next few
days, he received signed cards from nine employees employed
at the three stores. Before work on June 30, Cusick gave a
card to Linville, who signed and returned it to Pardew.
On June 30, about 10 a.m., Cusick, Pardew„ Morlock, and
Corwin were discharged, under circumstances described be-
low. By telephone later that day, Union Prepresentative
Smith requested Aaron Carafiol to reinstate the men and,
upon refusal, stated he would file charges with the Board' and
seek permission to picket Respondent "because of the unjust
discharge." About July 13, Smith called Carafiol again and
notified him that he had approval to institute picketing if the
men were not returned to work. On July 13, Pettus was
terminated. From July 15 to August 30, picketing took place
at Respondent's three stores under sanction of the Union, and
was participated in by all the dischargees in question, as well
as Linville.
C. The Discharges on June 30
On June 30, at 10:15 a.m., Aaron, Joseph, and Larry Cara-
fiol met at the Lemay store and called Superintendent Gittins
to an upstairs office. Gittins was told there was too much
horseplay, too much furniture damage, and the work was not
being done in the warehouse. They wished to talk to the men.
Gittins was instructed specifically to summon Cusick, Par-
dew, Morlock, and Corwin, but not Linville, and to come up
himself three to four minutes later. These employees ap-
peared and were addressed by Aaron Carafiol. He referred to
the recent "doubling" in customer service calls, which he
attributed to the careless handling and breakage of furniture
by these men in the warehouse. The problem was getting out
of control; something had to be done; he was not going to see
the Company's reputation, built up over 40 years in business,
go down the drain. At this point, the men were suddenly
terminated, without opportunity for response. Cusick re-
marked that he could not understand the entire group being
fired; no individual was charged with any specific incident or
cause; no warning was given of discharge; and the men had
in fact been complimented by Respondent about a month ago.
Aaron Carafiol testified that he decided to discharge the men
"right at the discussion" because he was "getting no response
from them whatsoever." He did not fire Linville because this
employee had not been there long enough to cause any com-
plaints or breakage. Linville had worked with the other four
men as a team; as earlier shown, he was hired before one of
the dischargees, Corwin.
By letter dated July 13, to Cusick, Respondent gave the
reasons for discharge:
' Formally filed on July 7, supra.
excessive horseplay while on the job, not reporting
breakage of merchandise to management ; leaving your
job without permission; not tending to your job during
working hours; over-all lack of proper attitude regarding
your work; the calling of various officers of the company
obscenities out of their presence ; and the increase in
service calls to repair damaged merchandise which dam-
age was believed to have occurred in the warehouse
during the tenure of your employment.
Certain of these items, e.g., not reporting breakage, leaving
without permission, calling officers obscenitites, were not at-
tempted to be substantiated in Respondent's testimony. Nor
were they mentioned at the discharge interview. All the evi-
dence of alleged impropriety in work or behavior was ex-
pressed in terms of general conclusions; no specific behavior
was expressed in terms of general conclusions ; no specific
identifiable incidents were shown involving Cusick or any of
the other warehousemen. In addition, Respondent stated at
the hearing as a ground for Cusick's discharge that he worked
on his motorcycle on company time and property. As I find,
this position, among others, was not advanced in good faith
and is wholly unsupported.
It appears that the problems regarding the Lemay ware-
house employees existed at the time Gittins was hired on May
10' when he told Aaron Carafiol he thought he could
straighten out the men. Since then, he complained to the
Carafiols about three times concerning the work not being
done and too much horseplay - the last occasion occurring
about June 21. Harvey Carafiol once remarked to Gittins that
he get rid of the men and hire new ones, but no effort was
made to do so. Gittins stated that he told the men at times
that the work was not being done. However, Cusick, Mor-
lock, and Pardew all testified that they had no "complaints"
from Respondent.' At one of these management discussions,
Joseph Carafiol indicated he was going to talk to the men and
compliment them.' At the end of May, he congratulated the
men for handling a greater amount of merchandise with less
service calls; they were doing a fine job and "keep up the good
work."10 Carafiol stated he also told them of the high inci-
dence of customer complaints of damaged merchandise. Par-
dew testified without contradiction that, on June 26, Aaron
Carafiol had a conversation with him in the presence, of Jo-
seph Carafiol. Pardew was informed that Respondent plans
to build a larger warehouse, to, which it would transfer the
Lemay warehousemen and hire others, probably in 1972.
Aaron Carafiol averred that the instigation for the dis-
charge interview on June 30 was the request by Patricia Dix
a day or two before to increase the number of days for the
furniture finisher to make customer service calls." Dix han-
dles the customer complaints, schedules the finisher's service
calls, and keeps the pertinent records.12 She indicated that, in
April, one finisher spent 2 entire days a week on outside
service calls; in the first week in June, he went out 3 days a
week; and in the last week of June, it was increased to 4 days
a week. It may be noted that the 4-day schedule continued as
of the time of the hearing. The finisher also goes to the other
' Pardew was employed since April 1969, during which period he re-
ceived three raises from $1 75 to $2 50 an hour Cusick was hired in early
March 1971, and Morlock in May 1971
Gittms was unclear as to dates and frequency of the conversations
Joseph testified that his intentions were to try "reverse psychology "
° Pardew's testimony that Joseph Carafiol similarly complimented the
warehousemen in mid-June is not corroborated by any of the other men, but
is not controverted
" Dix testified she made the request 3 or 4 days before June 30.
Despite General Counsel's objections, these records were not pro-
duced by Respondent to support its contentions, nor were either of the
finishers called to testify
CARAFIOLS 991
stores to repair damage. At Lemay, all furniture is inspected;
repaired , if necessary , in a finishing shop maintained in the
store; and brought to the staging area for shipment to custom-
ers or transfers to other stores. Thus, any damage attributable
to the warehousemen as related to the service calls would
occur when they assist in loading the delivery trucks. The
drivers and helpers handle the furniture on the trucks, and
unload and deliver at the customers ' homes. Also, account
should be taken of responsibility for damage by the ware-
housemen in the Manchester and Bridgeton stores. Superin-
tendent Gittins stated that , between May 10 and June 30,
delivery orders for, Lemay increased 25 to 50 percent. During
this time , a sign on the building indicated "August Sale In
Progress ." As testified, service calls increase in relation to the
volume of sales. While seeking to dispute that the rise in
service calls resulted in any part from increased sales, Re-
spondent did not produce any records.
Respondent argues the absence of direct evidence that Re-
spondent was aware of the union activities at the time of the
discharges on June 30 , Gittins avowed that he had no such
knowledge ; Cusick, Pardew , and Morlock testified that the
subject of the Union was not mentioned in any conversation
they had with management before or after the discharge."
However, as reflected in numerous Board cases, even absent
such direct proof of employer knowledge , an inference of
discriminatory motivation may reasonably be drawn from the
particular circumstances . '4 Here, it is shown that the dis-
charges took place abruptly upon the heels of the initial or-
ganizational effort, encompassing four of the six employees
who attended the union meeting and signed cards the night
before . Of the two other employees , Welkener quit and Pettus
was discharged on July 13.15 As described infra, Aaron Cara-
fiol had interrogated Pettus as to whether he attended the
union meeting on June 29 and signed an authorization card,
and also coercively promised and granted him a wage in-
crease . By such conduct , Respondent 's animus toward union
13 Gina G. Pardew, mother of Michael , testified to a conversation with
Aaron Carafiol, who returned her telephone call on July 1 . On direct exami-
nation, she stated that, when she asked why Michael was terminated. Cara-
fiol told her it was because he went to the union hall and signed a union card,
that it "would be all right if they signed a card [if] they wopldn't come to
the Labor Board ," and that she should talk to Michael and "have him come
back." The testimony on cross-examination included the following- Michael
contributes half his salary and it consists of almost half the support of the
house . On June 30 , before noon , she called the store to remind Michael of
a dental appointment , and was told by the office girl he was terminated (At
another point Mrs. Pardew testified that, after Michael was terminated, he
came home that morning and told her he and the others were fired because
they signed a union card the night before.) The office girl also informed her
that her son signed the union card and "they were let out " The girl then
transferred Mrs. Pardew 's call to the warehouse department downstairs and
she spoke to a man, who gave his name and said he was in charge. (If
assumed to be true, this man most likely would have been Gittins.) The
"man" told her - "they had been to union, and they had been let out that
morning That is exactly what he said . " At this point in her testimony,
the Trial Examiner was convinced that the witness was utterly incredible
It was highly unlikely that Respondent 's president, having the experience
of contractual relations with a flagrant breach of the law and then request
that it not be reported to the legal authorities On cross, the probability of
truth was virtually foreclosed, in my opinion, when she offered two further
instances of overt knowledge of discrimination volunteered by persons,
strangers to the witness , answering the telephone at Respondent 's establish-
ment . In addition , she was self-contradictory , highly confused, and, it ap-
peared to me, generally untrustworthy
14 E. g., N.L.R.B v. Pembeck Oil Corp, 404 F.2d 105, 110 (C .A. 2), enfg.
as modified 165 NLRB 367.
11 See, e g., ,N.L.R.B v. American Casting Service , Inc., 365 F.2d 168, 171
(C.A. 7), enfg 158 NLRB 415, and Alamba Rod and Wire Division , etc., 176
NLRB No. 25 ( reliance on the disproportion of prounion employees se-
lected for termination).
representation of the warehouse employees was amply re-
vealed . As earlier noted, solicitations for the Union were
made at all three stores. The foregoing circumstances are
sufficient at least to constitute prima facie evidence of dis-
crimination by Respondent in effecting the discharges in
question . It was thus incumbent on Respondent to demon-
strate legitimate business justification for its action . Many of
the reasons which Respondent advanced , as already shown,
are without any semblance of support . It seems plain, and I
find, that the Carafiols had decided in advance to discharge
the selected employees before instructing Superintendent Git-
tins to call them to the meeting on June 30 . Linville, as a
member of'the team , was spared , clearly not for the reasons
assigned. His 'family affiliation with the Carafiols may well
have influenced Respondent , and he was not at the union
meeting on June 29, although he signed a card the next
morning prior to the discharge interview . The terminations
were summary , without warning , or reasonable discussion
with the men , and depleted at once 80 percent of the Lemay
warehouse complement at the time of an existing or impend-
ing increase in sales. Even though Gittins was the immediate
supervisor and more intimately acquainted with the work
habits of these men, he was not consulted or even informed
concerning the advance decision to discharge.
Respondent 's reliance on previous instances of horseplay
and "not getting the work done " attributed to the warehouse-
men as a group , but not evidenced by specific conduct or
fault , fails to carry conviction . A consideration in the picture
is the character of these employees hired as teenagers or high
school students . If the alleged incompetence of the warehouse
group were as recurrent and serious as Respondent has
claimed , it would appear patently inconsistent to resort to
compliments as a "reverse psychology." Rather, in my opin-
ion, it would tend to show that drastic measures were not
contemplated . Finally, as earlier described, the asserted in-
crease in service calls as the precipitating cause for the dis-
charges does not withstand closer analysis, and must be re-
jected as a basic defense. The failure of Respondent, in
support of its generalized contentions, to furnish records
readily available serves to confirm the weakness of its posi-
tion.
It is my conclusion , therefore, that the variety of grounds
put forth by Respondent were essentially pretexts, and the
actual reason for the discharges was the union activity."
Accordingly, these alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3) are
sustained.
D. Pettus
1. Restraint and coercion
On July 1, Pettus was called to Aaron Carafiol 's private
office at the Manchester store. He asked if he had gone to the
union meeting and signed a card . To each question he replied
affirmatively . After pointing out certain benefits of employ-
ment with Respondent, Carafiol stated that the Union could
hurt his business , and he "didn 't want to see 40 years go down
the drain ." If it came to a vote, he would appreaciate Pettus
voting for him and against the Union. Pettus said he would
think it over and let him know . On July 3, Carafiol ap-
proached Pettus at work , in the presence of Andy Ayers.
Carafiol told Pettus he was doing an excellent job stepping in
to'handle Welkener's works' as well as his own. How much
money was he making? Pettus indicated about $50 weekly.
Carafiol said he deserved $10 a week extra as a bonus . On July
16 See N.L.R . B. v. Joseph Antell Inc., 358 F 2d 880 , 883 (C A 1).
17 Welkener had quit as of June 30 ; Ayers had been hired on July 3 as
a replacement , but quit 1 or 2 days later
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 and 13, in his weekly paychecks, Pettus received an increase
in hourly pay from $1.75 to $2.50 (or more than $20 added
for his limited workweek).
Although Carafiol's testimony is not materially at vari-
ance, Pettus' version is accepted. Carafiol took the position
that, on July 7 or 8, Pettus asked for and was given Welk-
ener 's job at a higher rate of pay. No documentary support
was offered by Respondent; Welkener's hourly rate was not
shown . It appears that the nature of the work was essentially
the same for Pettus, except that he was doing more strenuous
work while the vacancy existed which was left by Welkener.
Significantly uncontroverted is the evidence that the wage
increase was reflected in Pettus' paycheck on July 6. As de-
scribed, the increase in pay was quite substantial. It was
promised and granted in the context of the recent union
campaign, the unlawful discharge of the Lemay warehouse-
men, and the impending threat of the Union to picket Re-
spondent 's stores. On July 1, assurance of Pettus ' loyalty was
sought in the pointed effort of Carafiol to influence Pettus to
vote for him and against the Union.
Upon the total record, it is found that Pettus was coercively
interrogated , that he was promised and granted a substantial
wage increase to discourage his activity and support on behalf
of the Union, and that Respondent thereby violated Section
8(1)(1), as alleged.
2. The discharge
Pettus, age 16, was hired in December 1970. He worked
after school hours until 9 p.m., and on Saturday from 9 a.m.
to 6 p.m. In May 1971, he discussed with Joseph Carafiol his
work schedule for the forthcoming vacation period. Pettus
indicated he was taking summer school courses until 10 a.m.
each day, and it was arranged that, beginning June 15, he
would work during the week from 10:30 a.m. until 530 p.m.
About June 20, Aaron Carfiol asked him why he was not
coming in early. Pettus explained the arrangement made by
Joseph in view of his summer classes, and Aaron said it
"sounds fine." During the last week in June, he informed
Joseph that summer school would be over at the end of July,
and he was told to start work at 9 a.m. at such time.
On July 13, at 8:30 p.m., Pettus was summoned to Aaron's
office. Aaron said he did not know why he was coming in at
10:30 a.m.; he was needed at 9 a.m., for loading work, when
the truckdriver regularly arrives to take a "transfer load."
Pettus referred to their discussion in June when he told Aaron
of the hours arranged by Joseph. Aaron expressed doubt that
such a conversation occurred. Then he stated that if Pettus
could not be there at 9 o'clock the next morning, there was
no job for him; he could not wait until school was out on July
30.18 Aaron testified that he told Pettus he had been given
Welkener's job, and with the increased salary came the re-
sponsibility of the job, which included the starting time of 9
a.m. Pettus said, under those circumstances, he would have
to quit. Contrary to Respondent's position that Pettus re-
signed, I find that he was constructively discharged.
Normally three warehousemen were employed at the Man-
chester store. As of July 13, the vacancy left by Welkener on
June 30 remained unfilled. Welkener's hours had begun at 9
a.m. Andy Ayers, hired on July 3 to replace Welkener,
worked only 1 or 2 days. Gary Rosenberg, the remaining
employee in addition to Pettus, started work at 1 p.m. Thus,
for at least 1 week, it is apparent that there was no warehouse-
man present to meet the transfer truck at 9 a.m. No reason
was shown why, during this period, an additional employee
" Joseph Carafloil , who was present during the conversation , made no
comment. In his testimony, he did not attempt to refute Pettus.
was not hired or an earlier arrangement made to have a
warehouseman on the job at 9 a .m. Respondent pretends that
it was unaware of Pettus ' working hours , to which it had
agreed in view of his summer school . It did not request that
he change his hours on the basis that it was confronted with
an emergency business condition ; rather it resorted to an
artifice . Pettus did not let Respondent know , as he indicated
he would on July 1, whether or not he would "vote" for
Respondent and against the Union . About the time of the
discharge interview on July 13, Respondent was apprised that
the Union had authority and intended to commence picket-
ing. It was aware that Pettus had been at the June 29 union
meeting and signed a union card , and could not rely on his
willingness to work in the event of such picketing . Respond-
ent's coercive conduct as to Pettus and animus toward the
prounion warehousemen have already been described. Conse-
quently, I reach the conclusion that Respondent dis-
criminatorily terminated Pettus, in violation of Section
8(a)(3).
E. Picketing Misconduct of Pardew
Two incidents are alleged and litigated as to which the
respective testimony is in direct conflict . On August 9, about
9 p.m., while driving his car from the Lemay store, Aaron
Carafiol had an encounter with Pardew , who was walking the
picket line alone . Carafiol testified that Pardew called him a
vile name (which he specified ), spat at him, tried to open the
car door , and threatened to take him out and "beat his fuck-
ing head off." He had not said anything to Pardew . Carafiol
then drove back to a filling station, called the police, and
reported the incident upon their arrival . Pardew testified that
Carafiol pulled up at the picket line and called him a son of
a bitch . Pardew himself said and did nothing , but kept right
on walking . Since July 15 and continuing until August 30,
Pardew and other warehousemen regularly engaged in the
picketing of Respondent at its three locations. It is not con-
ceivable to me that such conduct by Pardew , as asserted,
occurred without provocation . I believe that Carafiol initiated
the exchange by calling Pardew a son of a bitch . And I am
constrained to credit Carafiol that Pardew responded not
only with strong obscenities but with an expressed or implied
threat of personal attack . 19 In the circumstances, I find that
Pardew, although provoked , exceeded the reasonable bounds
of mitigation by engaging in a threat of physical harm upon
the Company 's president . By such misconduct, he rendered
himself unfit for further employment and forfeited his right
to reinstatement.20
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Particularly in view of the
discriminatory discharges which go "to the very heart of the
Act," a broad cease and desist order appears warranted.21
It has been found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Richard Cusick, Earl W. Morlock, William Corwin, Michael
W. Pardew, and Jeffrey L. Pettus. Excepting Pardew, it will
" In certain respects , Pardew's testimony was distinctly of a shifting and
careless character . I am of the opinion that he was not an honest and reliable
witness as to matters which were not corroborated.
30 It is unnecessary to pass on the second incident of alleged misconduct
which occurred on August 17. The police reports are in evidence as TX
Exhs . 1-A and 1-B. Although hearsay, they were admitted as authentic
documents for possible corroborative purposes.
" N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426 ; N.L.R.B. v. Entwis-
tle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4).
CARAFIOLS 993
be recommended that Respondent offer these employees im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or if those
jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent jobs , without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
Including Pardew, it will be recommended that Respondent
make these employees whole for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them , by payment to
them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally
would have earned , absent the discrimination , with backpay
and interest computed under the established formulae of the
Board." As to Pardew, the backpay period will end on Au-
gust 9, 1971 . It will be further recommended that Respondent
preserve and make available to the Board , upon request, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, ° and all other records neces-
sary and useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and
the rights of reinstatement under the terms of these recom-
mendations.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Richard Cusick , Earl W . Morlock, Wil-
liam Corwin , and Michael W. Pardew on June 30 , 1971, and
Jeffrey L. Pettus on July 13, 1971 , thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union , Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing , and by other acts and conduct interfer-
ing with , restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended?'
ORDER
Respondent , L. H. C., Inc. - Fashion Furniture Company
d/b/a Carafiols-Carafiol Furniture Co. d/b/a Carafiols, of
Lemay, Warson Woods, and Bridgeton , Missouri, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities ; or coercively promising or granting benefits
to employees to discourage union membership or support.
(b) Discouraging membership in Teamsters , Local Union
No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
in any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or
in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
23 F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716
E3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 .48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Richard Cusick, Earl W . Morlock, William Cor-
win, and Jeffrey L. Pettus immediate and full reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges , and make them, and
Michael W. Pardew, whole for any loss of earnings, in the
manner set forth in The Remedy section of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision.
(b) Excepting Michael W. Pardew, notify the above-named
employees , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of their right to reinstatement, upon applica-
tion, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents
all payroll and other records, as set forth in The Remedy
section of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
(d) Post at its stores and warehouses in Lemay, Warson
Woods, and Bridgeton , Missouri , copies of the attached no-
tice marked "Appendix ."" Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, shall, after
being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, and be main-
tained for a -period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
" In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
" In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial , in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post
this notice; and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board,
and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT ask you anything about a Union, or
who is in the Union, in a manner which would coerce
you regarding your rights under the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant you wage increases or
other benefits to keep you from joining or supporting a
Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge , layoff, or otherwise dis-
criminate against you in order to discourage member-
ship or support for Teamsters , Local Union No. 688,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization.
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other , manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed employees in the National Labor Relations Act,
which are as follows:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all these things.
Since it has been found that we unlawfully discharged
Richard Cusick , Earl W . Morlock , William Corwin, Mi-
chael W . Pardew, and Jeffrey L . Pettus, WE WILL pay
them for the earnings they lost because of the discrimina-
tion, plus 6-percent interest , and WE WILL offer to give
them , except Michael W . Pardew (who engaged in seri-
ous picketing misconduct), back their regular jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, we will give them substantially
equivalent jobs.
WE WILL notify the above-named employees, except
Michael W . Pardew, if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States , of their right to reinstate-
ment upon application , in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
L. H. C., INC. -
FASHION FURNITURE
COMPANY D/B/A
CARAFIOLS-CARAFIOL
FURNITURE CO.
D/B/A CARAFIOLS
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material . its provisions may be directed
to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard , Room 448,
St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.